[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

6lo                                                             S. Kumar
Internet-Draft                                          Philips Research
Intended status: Standards Track                         P. van der Stok
Expires: September 5, 2015                                    Consultant
                                                           March 4, 2015


      Security Bootstrapping over IEEE 802.15.4 in selective order
                 draft-kumar-6lo-selective-bootstrap-00

Abstract

   Low-resource devices in a Low-resource and Lossy Network (LLN) can be
   based on a mesh network using the IEEE 802.15.4 link standard.
   Security in these networks MUST be enforced at the link level.
   Provisioning the devices in a secure manner with keys (often called
   security bootstrapping) to encrypt and authenticate the link-layer
   messages is the subject of this specification.  This proposal
   distinguishes itself from other bootstrap proposals by requiring that
   the devices can be secured in an order determined by the needs of the
   installation procedure.  Other proposals use an "onion model", where
   first the devices one-hop away from the initial device (often the
   border router) are secured, followed by the devices that are one-hop
   away from already secured devices.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 5, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.





Kumar & van der Stok    Expires September 5, 2015               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                  Bootstrap                     March 2015


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Use Case  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Mesh Bootstrap Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     5.1.  Network Layout  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.2.  Commissioning Tool discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.3.  Bootstrap security layer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       5.3.1.  ICMP messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       5.3.2.  Joining a 6LR to the secured mesh . . . . . . . . . .  12
       5.3.3.  Packet handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       5.3.4.  Securing a channel  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     5.4.  Secure key transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   6.  Setting layer-2 key values  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   10. Change log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21

1.  Introduction

   IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)
   [RFC4944] on IEEE 802.15.4 [ieee802.15.4] wireless networks is
   becoming common in many professional domains such as lighting
   controls.  However commissioning of such networks is not easy due to
   a lack of standardized secure bootstrapping mechanisms for these
   networks.

   The security of IEEE 802.15.4 MAC frames is based on Advanced
   Encryption Standard (AES) [FIPS.197.2001] in Counter with CBC-MAC
   Mode (CCM) [CCM] which provides confidentiality and authenticity.




Kumar & van der Stok    Expires September 5, 2015               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                  Bootstrap                     March 2015


   There are different security levels or combinations of authenticated
   encryption defined in IEEE 802.15.4 as shown in Table 1.

   +-----------------+-----------------+------------------------------+
   |  Security Level | Confidentiality | Message Integrity Code (MIC) |
   +-----------------+-----------------+------------------------------+
   |        0        |       None      |             None             |
   |        1        |       None      |       Yes (4 byte MIC)       |
   |        2        |       None      |       Yes (8 byte MIC)       |
   |        3        |       None      |      Yes (16 byte MIC)       |
   |        4        |       Yes       |             None             |
   |        5        |       Yes       |       Yes (4 byte MIC)       |
   |        6        |       Yes       |       Yes (8 byte MIC)       |
   |        7        |       Yes       |      Yes (16 byte MIC)       |
   +-----------------+-----------------+------------------------------+

             Table 1: IEEE 802.15.4 supported Security Levels

   Although IEEE 802.15.4 defines how security can be enabled between
   nodes, it does not specify the provisioning and management of the
   keys.  Therefore securing a 6lowpan network with devices from
   multiple manufacturers with different provisioning techniques is
   often tedious and time consuming.

   Some industry standards have tried to solve the issue by using a mix
   of other protocols with extensions.  For example, Zigbee-IP
   [ZigbeeIP] uses Protocol for carrying Authentication for Network
   Access (PANA) [RFC5191] with the additional PANA-Relay [RFC6345] to
   carry EAP-TLS [RFC5216] packets to the joining node as shown in
   Figure 1.





















Kumar & van der Stok    Expires September 5, 2015               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                  Bootstrap                     March 2015


   +-----------------+
   |    EAP Peer     |    +-------------+
   +-----------------+    |PANA Relay   |
   |PANA Client (PaC)|<-->|Element (PRE)|
   +-----------------+    +------^------+
     Joining Node                |
                                 |
                                 |
                         +-------v-----------+          +-----------+
                         |EAP Authenticator  |          |EAP Server |
                         +-------------------+<-------->+-----------+
                         |PANA Authentication|          |AAA Server |
                         |Agent (PAA)        |          +-----------+
                         +-------------------+


                 Figure 1: EAP over PANA for bootstrapping

   The additional protocol stack of PANA and EAP provides for a large
   amount of flexibility in terms of potential security protocols and
   cryptographic algorithms that can be used for authentication and key
   distribution.  However this flexibility is often not needed in IoT
   scenarios or often not wanted for inter-operability reasons (e.g.
   Zigbee-IP only uses EAP-TLS mode with two possible cryptosuites).
   DTLS-Relay [I-D.kumar-dice-dtls-relay] as depicted in Figure 2 is an
   alternative simpler proposal based on trust enrolment
   [I-D.jennings-core-transitive-trust-enrollment]  that provides the
   same results by reusing the security protocols (like DTLS [RFC6347])
   that already exist on IoT devices.


   +--------+        +-------+          +-------+
   |  DTLS  |        | DTLS  |          | DTLS  |
   | Client |<------>| Relay |<-------->|Server |
   +--------+        +-------+          +-------+
    Joining                                AAA
     Node                                 Server


                  Figure 2: DTLS Relay for bootstrapping

   Numerous other recent proposals like
   [I-D.pritikin-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra],
   [I-D.richardson-6tisch--security-6top],
   [I-D.struik-6tisch-security-considerations],
   [I-D.ohba-6tisch-security], [I-D.he-iot-security-bootstrapping]
   discuss network bootstrapping in multi-hop networks and their
   architectural implications.  However an essential aspect of all these



Kumar & van der Stok    Expires September 5, 2015               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                  Bootstrap                     March 2015


   techniques (including the PANA-Relay and DTLS-Relay) is that they
   rely on an "Onion" topology for bootstrapping: devices which are one-
   hop wireless from the Border Router (or Commissioning Device) are
   provisioned first.  Devices multiple hops removed from the border
   router are provisioned by an already provisioned neighbour (an
   "Onion" layer) until the whole network is bootstrapped.

   Such an "Onion" model can be limiting in various professional domains
   where a large number of devices need to be commissioned (provided
   with installation information) in an order determined by their
   physical layout rather than by the wireless network topology.  The
   wireless network topology is often unknown to a commissioner and may
   vary over time due to environmental conditions (e.g. presence of
   scaffolding during construction).  Therefore, "onion" bootstrapping
   proposals force a tedious separation of the actual device
   commissioning done by a domain expert from the security bootstrapping
   of the devices.  The purpose of the bootstrapping proposal of this
   specification is a simultaneous execution of commissioning and
   bootstrapping.

   In this specification, the bootstrapping order of the nodes can be
   selected by a commissioner.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   Readers are expected to be familiar with all the terms and concepts
   that are discussed in "neighbour Discovery for IP version 6"
   [RFC4861], "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration" [RFC4862],
   "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
   Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals" [RFC4919],
   "neighbour Discovery Optimization for Low-power and Lossy Networks"
   [RFC6775] and "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
   Networks" [RFC4944].

   This specification uses the following terms from [RFC6775]:

   6LoWPAN link:  A wireless link determined by single IP hop
      reachability of neighbouring nodes.  These are considered links
      with undetermined connectivity properties as in [RFC5889].

   6LoWPAN Node (6LN):  A 6LoWPAN node is any host or router
      participating in a LoWPAN.  This term is used when referring to
      situations in which either a host or router can play the role
      described.



Kumar & van der Stok    Expires September 5, 2015               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                  Bootstrap                     March 2015


   6LoWPAN Router (6LR):  An intermediate router in the LoWPAN that is
      able to send and receive Router Advertisements (RAs) and Router
      Solicitations (RSs) as well as forward and route IPv6 packets.
      6LoWPAN routers are present only in route-over topologies.

   6LoWPAN Border Router (6LBR):  A border router located at the
      junction of separate 6LoWPAN networks or between a 6LoWPAN network
      and another IP network.  There may be one or more 6LBRs at the
      6LoWPAN network boundary.  A 6LBR is the responsible authority for
      IPv6 prefix propagation for the 6LoWPAN network it is serving.  An
      isolated LoWPAN also contains a 6LBR in the network, which
      provides the prefix(es) for the isolated network.

   Router:  Either a 6LR or a 6LBR.  Note that nothing in this document
      precludes a node being a router on some interfaces and a host on
      other interfaces as allowed by [RFC2460].

   This specification uses the following new terms:

   Commissioning Tool (CT):  A processor that contains keying material,
      authorizes nodes to join, and communicates the keying material.

   6LoWPAN Joining Node (6JN):  A 6LoWPAN node that is next to join a
      secured LoWPAN mesh.  This term is used when either the node sends
      a join request to the CT or the CT sends key material to the node
      for joining.

   6LoWPAN Secured Router (6SR):  A 6LoWPAN router that has joint a
      secured LoWPAN mesh.  This term is used when the router has
      received the key material to join the LoWPAN mesh.

   6LoWPAN Un-secured Router (6UR):  A 6LoWPAN router that has NOT joint
      a secured LoWPAN mesh.  This term is used when the router has
      received no key material to join the LoWPAN mesh.

3.  Use Case

   In lighting controls a major shift is on its way from lighting
   specific networking standards like [DALI] to Internet networking
   standards.  This shift has a profound influence on the installation
   and commissioning of the lighting control network.  With special
   purpose networks, the installation of the lighting control and the
   network were done during the same installation phase.

   The choice for the Internet Protocol is motivated by the reduction of
   costs by separation of concerns, in this case: The separation of the
   network installation from the lighting control installation and




Kumar & van der Stok    Expires September 5, 2015               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                  Bootstrap                     March 2015


   commissioning.  For Internet based installations the following phases
   are expected in a fair number of installations:

   Electric installation:  All electric cabling is laid out and
      connections are validated.

   Network installation:  All network interfaces are connected and
      validated.

   Lighting installation:  All lighting fixtures are named and other
      information is loaded into them (commissioning); simultaneously
      the security bootstrapping of the network is done.

   Dependent on the installation company, the proposed network
   configuration, and the installation contract, these phases and their
   order may not be respected and a bootstrap protocol may be used
   different from the one described in this specification.

   For an IEEE 802.15.4 network [ieee802.15.4] the specified three
   phases imply that after the network installation, non-battery powered
   devices are connected to their electricity supply, and the
   IEEE802.15.4 layer-2 mesh and the 6LoWPAN IP layer-3 mesh is
   configured.  Also the preferred IP routing protocol must be working
   to route messages between IEEE 802.15.4 interfaces based on their IP
   address.  During the Lighting installation, devices are selected
   according to an installation-dependent protocol, named, and layer 2
   security keys are loaded into the devices.  When all designated
   devices have received their security keys, the network is closed such
   that only authorized nodes can route messages in the network, and
   data packets can only be exchanged between the layer-2 secured
   devices.  The layer-3 routing protocol MUST continue routing messages
   before, during and after the Lighting installation procedure.

   The selection of the devices is executed by an installation engineer
   using a Commissioning Tool (CT).  According to an installation-
   dependent protocol a device is selected from the set of not yet
   selected devices, and its identity is communicated to the CT.  The CT
   exchanges messages with the selected device to distribute the keys
   (see Section 5.4) and other installation specific data.  The order of
   selection is completely installation and installer dependent, is
   optimized for low cost, and is not aware of network topology.

4.  Requirements

   This section lists the requirements for the bootstrap solution.






Kumar & van der Stok    Expires September 5, 2015               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                  Bootstrap                     March 2015


      Selection of device: The commissioner is able to select an
      installed device and commission it without the knowledge of the
      wireless network topology.

      Device authenticity: A commissioner should be able to verify that
      the credentials of the device being bootstrapped match the
      credentials of the one selected to commission.

      Device authorization: A commissioner should be able to decide if a
      particular authenticated device can indeed be part of the secure
      network being created.

      Commissioning Tool (CT) authenticity and authorization: The device
      being commissioned can verify if the CT is allowed to bootstrap
      the device.  Alternatively, the device may allow any CT to
      bootstrap it provided a mechanism exists, either in-band or out-
      of-band, to reset it and start over again.

      Key Confidentiality: The layer-2 key that is used to secure the
      network should be encrypted such that only the device being
      commissioned can decrypt the key.

      Key Authenticity: The device should be able to verify that the
      layer-2 key has not been tampered during transport.

5.  Mesh Bootstrap Procedure

   The flow of the mesh bootstrap procedure involves a joining node
   (6JN), a Commissioning Tool (CT) and a path over secured routers
   (6SR) and unsecured routers (6UR).  It is assumed that Neighbour
   discovery has been executed, and a router protocol supports the
   routing through the mesh.  In the beginning all routers (6LR) are
   unsecured.

   A 6JN announces its presence by sending a join request to the CT.
   The join request is routed over the mesh involving possibly 6UR and
   6LR to the CT.  The 6JN MAY be identified by its EUI64 identifier
   [EUI64].  The identifier MAY be transported in the join request.

   In an alternative approach with its own operational constraints, the
   CT already has a list of all node identifiers, and uses a different
   bootstrapping protocol.  This approach is not the subject of this
   specification.

   The CT on receiving the join request can decide if 6JN is a
   legitimate device and if it can be part of secure network being
   commissioned.  If positive, then the CT sends the layer-2 key
   material to the node via a secured channel.  The receiving node



Kumar & van der Stok    Expires September 5, 2015               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                  Bootstrap                     March 2015


   installs the key material and passes from unsecured to secured node.
   The secured node sets up secured links with its 6SR using the
   received key material.  When all nodes are secured, the network is
   secured, and communication (routing) is only allowed via secured
   channels.

5.1.  Network Layout

   The network to be secured consists of a set of wireless nodes
   interconnected to a mesh network via IEEE 802.15.4 interfaces.  The
   mesh network may be connected to a border router (6LBR) as described
   in [RFC6775].  The 6LBR may be connected to a backbone.  The CT can
   be connected to the mesh network to be connected in several ways:

      CT is connected to an IEEE802.11 interface that communicates with
      the IEEE802.11 Access Point Located in the 6LBR.

      CT is connected to the backbone directly or via a path composed of
      one or more routers.

   It is required that messages can be routed between the CT and each of
   the candidate devices in the mesh to be secured.

   In an alternative network, not considered here, the CT is connected
   with an IEEE 802.15.4 interface to the mesh network.  In this case
   the 6LBR is not required.  A mobile CT can then do one-hop
   commissioning of the devices.

5.2.  Commissioning Tool discovery

   The discovery of the Commissioning Tool (CT) by the 6LR is outside
   the scope of this specification.  The CT can be discovered in several
   ways dependent on the infrastructure, for example:

   Mesh connected to backbone:  In this case the CT can announce its
      presence in DNS using DNS-SD [RFC6763].  The 6JN can query DNS for
      the address of the nodes supporting the CT service.

   Resource Directory present:  When a Resource Directory (RD)
      [I-D.ietf-core-resource-directory] is present, the CT can store
      the presence of its service in the RD.  The 6JN can query the RD
      for the address of the nodes supporting the CT service.

   Stand alone mesh:  The 6JN can send a multicast to /.well-known/core
      querying the existence of the CT service.






Kumar & van der Stok    Expires September 5, 2015               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                  Bootstrap                     March 2015


5.3.  Bootstrap security layer

   The purpose of this document is to specify a so-called "bootstrap-
   layer" between layer-2 and layer-3 to satisfy the use case of
   Section 3.  In the text the "joining node" (6JN) is the unsecured
   router (6UR) that is selected to be the next 6LR to be secured.  The
   following considerations have led to the definitions of the bootstrap
   layer:

      Messages MUST be routed between CT and the 6JN.

      The route between CT and 6JN may pass through the 6LBR.

      The route between CT and 6JN may pass through secured routers
      (6SR) and unsecured routers (6UR).

   The last consideration follows directly from the installation-
   dependent order of 6JN selection.  The last consideration also means
   that a 6SR has to communicate over secured and unsecured links.

   Every 6LR maintains in the bootstrap-layer:

      A list of its neighbours.  (This list can be shared with neighbour
      discovery, or with other protocols).

      A Boolean variable, ALL_SECURED, which initially is false.

   These two items constitute the bootstrap state of a 6LR.

   The neighbour list of the node contains information whether a link
   between itself and the neighbour is secured.  Dependent on the value
   of the bootstrap state, packets are refused, encrypted, decrypted,
   and passed on between layer-2 and layer-3.

5.3.1.  ICMP messages

   The protocol uses one ICMP message transporting two bootstrap
   requests:

   Join Secure Request (JSR):  This is an unsecured message that is sent
      from an 6UR to the CT with the request to be secured.

   Set Secure Request (SSR):  this is a secured message that is sent
      from a 6SR to signal its secured state to a neighbour 6LR

   The layout of the ICMP messages is:





Kumar & van der Stok    Expires September 5, 2015              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                  Bootstrap                     March 2015


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |     Type      |     Code      |          Checksum             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Status     |   Reserved    |     Registration Lifetime     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                            EUI-64                             +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 3: ICMP message layout

   IP fields:

   IPv6 source:   In a JSR this the non link-local address of the
                  sending 6UR; in a SSR this is the link-local address
                  of the sending 6SR.

   IPv6 destination:  In a JSR this is non link-local address of the CT;
                  in a SSR this is the link-local address of a neighbour
                  6LR.

   Hop Limit:     Set to MULTIHOP_HOPLIMIT on transmit.  MUST be ignored
                  on receipt.

   ICMP Fields:

   Type:          TBD for JSR and for SSR

   Code:          Set to one for JSR and set to two for SSR.

   Checksum:      The ICMP checksum.  See [RFC4443].

   Status:        8-bit unsigned integer.  Indicates the status of a
                  registration in the CT.  MUST be set to 0 in JSR.  See
                  Table 2.

   Reserved:      This field is unused.  It MUST be initialized to zero
                  by the sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.

   Registration Lifetime:  16-bit unsigned integer.  The amount of time
                  in a unit of 60 seconds that the 6LR should retain the
                  secure state in the Neighbor entry for the sender of
                  the SSR.





Kumar & van der Stok    Expires September 5, 2015              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                  Bootstrap                     March 2015


   EUI-64:        64 bits.  This field is used to uniquely identify the
                  interface of the registered address by including the
                  EUI-64 identifier [EUI64] assigned to it unmodified.

   The Status values used in JSR and SSR are (to be done/ eventually
   removed):

         +---------+--------------------------------------------+
         |  Status |                Description                 |
         +---------+--------------------------------------------+
         |    0    |                  Success                   |
         |    1    |             Duplicate Address              |
         |    2    |                 Impossible                 |
         |  3-255  | Allocated using Standards Action [RFC5226] |
         +---------+--------------------------------------------+

                                  Table 2

5.3.2.  Joining a 6LR to the secured mesh


   +------+   +------+    +------+   +------+    +------+    +------+
   |      |   |      |    |      |   |      |    |      |    |      |
   |  CT  |   | 6LBR |    | 6SR  |   | 6UR  |    | 6JN  |    | 6SR  |
   +------+   +------+    +------+   +------+    +------+    +------+
      |          |           |           |           |           |
      |          | (secured) |(unsecured)|(unsecured)|(unsecured)|
      |          |           |           |           |           |
      |          |           |           | <--(1)----|           |
      |          |           | <---(2)---|    JSR    |           |
      |          |<---(3)--- |           |           |           |
      | <--(4)-- |           |           |           |           |
      |          |           |           |           |           |
      |=================(5)=========================>|           |
      |          |   (many packets    DTLS           |           |
      |          |           |           |           |           |
      |          |           |           | <--(6)----| ---(7)--->|
      |          |           |           |    SSR    |    SSR    |
      |          |           |           |           |           |
      |          |           |           |           |<---(8)----|
      |          |           |           |           |    SSR    |
      |          |           |           |           |           |
      |          | (secured) |(unsecured)|(unsecured)| (secured) |
      |          |           |           |           |           |

           Figure 4: Message flow diagram of bootstrap protocol





Kumar & van der Stok    Expires September 5, 2015              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                  Bootstrap                     March 2015


   Figure 4 is a message flow diagram representing the bootstrapping
   protocol message exchange.  The diagram is quite close to the message
   flow diagram of [I-D.richardson-6tisch--security-6top].  It is
   assumed that the neighbours have discovered each other at layer-2
   with the IEEE802.15.4 beacons.  Also it is assumed that all NS, RS,
   RA, and DAD messages have been exchanged with Neighbour Discovery.
   Also the routing protocol has started.

   Assume, that at some point during the security bootstrap protocol,
   the 6LBR interface and the two 6SR interfaces have been secured.
   Before the bootstrap protocol starts the variable ALL_SECURED is set
   to false in all nodes.

   The 6JN sends at (1) a JSR over an unsecured channel containing its
   EUI64 identifier.  At (2) the message is routed on over an unsecure
   channel, and at (3) it is routed to the 6LBR over a secure channel.
   At (4) the unsecured request is passed on to the CT.  After
   reception, the CT sets up a secure end-to-end DTLS link with 6JN
   (described further in Section 5.4) and securely transfers the keys
   over this DTLS session at (5).  The secure DTLS packets are routed
   over secure and unsecure layer-2 channels in the mesh.  Once the keys
   are installed, the 6JN sends a SSR to both neighbours at (6) and (7).
   At (8) the 6SR neighbour returns a SSR to 6JN.  Afterwards the link
   between 6JN and 6SR is secured.

   When all designated 6LR have become 6SR, the CT sends a network close
   messages to all designated 6SR.  On reception, the 6SR nodes set
   their variable ALL_SECURED to true.

5.3.3.  Packet handling

   Dependent on the bootstrap state of the 6LR, the following rules are
   followed by the bootstrap layer for the communication with a
   neighbouring 6LR, called N.  The packet handling is specified under 3
   conditions:

   Condition 1: The link with N is signalled secure in the neighbour
   list:

   o  An unsecured packet arriving from N is refused.

   o  A secured, authenticated packet arriving from N is decrypted and
      if authentication is verified, passed on to layer 3.

   Condition 2: The link with N is signalled NOT secure in the neighbour
   list, and ALL_SECURED is false:





Kumar & van der Stok    Expires September 5, 2015              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                  Bootstrap                     March 2015


   o  When the receiving node is secured, a secured packet arriving from
      N is decrypted and if authentication is verified, passed on to
      layer-3.  This is needed for the SSR packet at step (8) in
      Figure 4.

   o  When the receiving node is not secured, a secured packet from N is
      refused.

   o  An unsecured packet from N is passed on to layer-3.

   Condition 3: ALL_SECURED is true:

   o  All unsecured packets are refused.

   Packets coming from layer-3 with destination N are sent according to
   the rules:

   o  When the link with N is signalled secure in the neighbour list,
      the packet is encrypted and authenticated.

   o  When the link with N is signalled unsecure in the neighbour list,
      the packet is sent without encryption or authentication.

5.3.4.  Securing a channel

   After termination of the secure key transfer (see Section 5.4, the
   node fills the ACL table maintained at layer-2 [ieee802.15.4].  The
   next stage is to determine whether the neighbours are also equipped
   with the keys.  Once the neighbour of a secured node is secured, the
   link between the two MUST be declared secure in the list of both
   neighbours.  The determination of a secure link is done by exchanging
   SSR messages, according to the following protocol:

      A node that has set its keys in the ACL table sends a secured SSR
      message to all its neighbours.

      On reception of a secured SSR from node N, and the link of node N
      is not secured in the list of neighbours, and the receiving node
      is secured, the receiving node sends a secured SSR to node N;
      consecutively, the receiving node sets the link of neighbour N to
      secured in the list of neighbours.

      On reception of a secured SSR from node N and the receiving node
      is NOT secured, the receiving node rejects the message.







Kumar & van der Stok    Expires September 5, 2015              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                  Bootstrap                     March 2015


5.4.  Secure key transfer

   The layer-2 keys are distributed to the devices over a secure DTLS
   session as indicated in message (5) in Figure 4.  This DTLS session
   is created using a trust anchor that is deployed in the devices
   during manufacturing.  The trust anchor can be for e.g. one of these
   listed below:

   o  Pre-shared key: The manufacturer of the device can embed a pre-
      shared key as a trust anchor during the personalization of the
      device in the factory.  The key along with EUI-64 of the device is
      then shared with authorized commissioners such that a secure DTLS
      channel based on [RFC4279] can be established between the CT and
      6JN.  It is recommended to use the cipher suite
      TLS_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8 [RFC6655] which is the mandatory to
      implement cipher suite for use with shared secret based DTLS in
      Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [RFC7252].

   o  Raw public key: The manufacturer of the device can embed a {pubic-
      key, private-key} pair of an asymmetric cryptographic algorithm as
      a trust anchor during the personalization of the device in the
      factory.  The public-key (or a hash of the public-key) is
      available out-of-band (for e.g. printed on the device) to the
      commissioner to enable authentication and authorization of the
      selected device over a secure DTLS channel based on [RFC7250].  It
      is recommended to use the cipher suite
      TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8 [RFC7251] which is the
      recommended cipher suite for raw-public key based DTLS in CoAP.

   o  Certificates: The manufacturer of the device can embed a {public-
      key, private-key} pair along with a certificate (signed by the
      manufacturer or a trusted third party) linking the public-key to
      an identity in the device.  This could be for example an IEEE
      802.1AR certificate [IDevID] which links the public-key to the
      EUI-64 of the device.  The DTLS session is then established
      between the CT and JN based on the trust in the certificate.  It
      is recommended to use the cipher suite
      TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8 which is recommended for
      certificate based DTLS in CoAP.

   It is important to note that only the pre-shared key option above
   provides mutual authentication of the DTLS channel.  For raw public
   key and certificate option, an additional root public key needs to be
   provisioned in the device for authenticating the CT with a mutually
   authenticated DTLS handshake.






Kumar & van der Stok    Expires September 5, 2015              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                  Bootstrap                     March 2015


6.  Setting layer-2 key values

   Once the DTLS session is established (using any of the trust anchors
   mentioned above), the layer-2 keys can be transported within the
   secure session.  The setting of the values in the device can be
   achieved using a CoAP request on a well-defined CoAP resource which
   is used for configuring the MAC layer keys, in analogy to the
   multicast address setting in [RFC7390].

   Another solution is using a YANG file that specifies configurable key
   entries, the values of which can be set with for example CoMI
   [I-D.vanderstok-core-comi].

   CoAP endpoints implementing the layer-2 key setting RESTful interface
   MUST support the CoAP Internet Media Type "application/coap-
   group+json".

   A resource offering this representation can be annotated for direct
   discovery [RFC6690] using the Resource Type (rt=) Link Target
   Attribute "core.ky", where "ky" is shorthand for "layer-2 key
   values".  An authorized client uses this media type to query/ manage
   layer-2 key values of a CoAP endpoint as defined in the following
   subsections.

   TODO: specify payload format and resource name "/coap-key2"

7.  IANA Considerations

   The document registers one new ICMPv6 "type" number under the
   subregistry "ICMPv6 "type" Numbers":

   o  Bootstrap Request (xxx)

8.  Security Considerations

   o  During the commissioning period, rogue nodes can use the network
      and send requests to 6LR and thus compromise the nodes.  It is
      recommended that during the period from network start up till the
      end of the secure bootstrapping, no resources can be accessed in
      the 6LR.  Consequently, the nodes can only exchange ICMP messages.
      In this case the routing tables and the neighbour tables of the
      6LR can be corrupted.  Such corruption will be detrimental to the
      bootstrap process and can be detected, after which the installer
      SHOULD take measures to remove the rogue nodes.

   o  After all nodes in the network have been commissioned, the network
      needs to be finally secured by setting ALL_SECURED to true for all
      nodes.  This final message needs to be securely sent by the CT



Kumar & van der Stok    Expires September 5, 2015              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                  Bootstrap                     March 2015


      either in unicast or multicast to all the nodes in the network.
      If additional nodes need to be added to the network at a later
      point in time, a new secure message needs to be sent by the CT
      with ALL_SECURED set to false.  This message can either be sent to
      the whole network or (if known) only to the neighbours of the
      joining node.  Both messages that change the ALL_SECURED state
      should be authenticated by the CT and not re-playable.

   o  The large number of messages exchanged between the joining node
      and CT can be misused by a rogue node to create a Denial-of-
      Service (DoS) at nodes closer to the 6LBR, 6LBR itself or at the
      CT.  This can be limited by ensuring that the DTLS handshake is
      only performed by the CT with a node that the commissioner has
      presently chosen to bootstrap.  Thus the rogue messages are only
      limited to ICMP "Bootstrap Request" messages.

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Peter Lenoir and Dee Denteneer for
   the valuable discussions that helped in shaping the solution.

10.  Change log

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
              Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
              Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              September 2007.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.

   [RFC4919]  Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6
              over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs):
              Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals", RFC
              4919, August 2007.



Kumar & van der Stok    Expires September 5, 2015              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                  Bootstrap                     March 2015


   [RFC4944]  Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler,
              "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4
              Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC5889]  Baccelli, E. and M. Townsley, "IP Addressing Model in Ad
              Hoc Networks", RFC 5889, September 2010.

   [RFC6347]  Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
              Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, January 2012.

   [RFC6775]  Shelby, Z., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. Bormann,
              "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power
              Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775,
              November 2012.

11.2.  Informative References

   [CCM]      National Institute of Standards and Technology, , "SP
              800-38C Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of
              Operation: The CCM Mode for Authentication and
              Confidentiality", May 2004.

   [DALI]     IEC, , "Digital Addressable Lighting Interface, IEC
              62386", June 2009.

   [EUI64]    IEEE, "Guidelines for 64-bit Global Identifier (EUI-64)
              Registration Authority",
              <http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/tutorials/
              EUI64.html>.

   [FIPS.197.2001]
              National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Advanced
              Encryption Standard (AES)", FIPS PUB 197, November 2001,
              <http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips197/
              fips-197.pdf>.

   [I-D.he-iot-security-bootstrapping]
              ana.hedanping@huawei.com, a., "Security Bootstrapping of
              IEEE 802.15.4 based Internet of Things", draft-he-iot-
              security-bootstrapping-00 (work in progress), January
              2015.






Kumar & van der Stok    Expires September 5, 2015              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                  Bootstrap                     March 2015


   [I-D.ietf-core-resource-directory]
              Shelby, Z. and C. Bormann, "CoRE Resource Directory",
              draft-ietf-core-resource-directory-02 (work in progress),
              November 2014.

   [I-D.jennings-core-transitive-trust-enrollment]
              Jennings, C., "Transitive Trust Enrollment for Constrained
              Devices", draft-jennings-core-transitive-trust-
              enrollment-01 (work in progress), October 2012.

   [I-D.kumar-dice-dtls-relay]
              Kumar, S., Keoh, S., and O. Garcia-Morchon, "DTLS Relay
              for Constrained Environments", draft-kumar-dice-dtls-
              relay-02 (work in progress), October 2014.

   [I-D.ohba-6tisch-security]
              Chasko, S., Das, S., Lopez, R., Ohba, Y., Thubert, P., and
              A. Yegin, "Security Framework and Key Management Protocol
              Requirements for 6TiSCH", draft-ohba-6tisch-security-01
              (work in progress), March 2014.

   [I-D.pritikin-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]
              Pritikin, M., Behringer, M., and S. Bjarnason,
              "Bootstrapping Key Infrastructures", draft-pritikin-anima-
              bootstrapping-keyinfra-01 (work in progress), February
              2015.

   [I-D.richardson-6tisch--security-6top]
              Richardson, M., "6tisch secure join using 6top", draft-
              richardson-6tisch--security-6top-04 (work in progress),
              November 2014.

   [I-D.struik-6tisch-security-considerations]
              Struik, R., "6TiSCH Security Architectural
              Considerations", draft-struik-6tisch-security-
              considerations-01 (work in progress), January 2015.

   [I-D.vanderstok-core-comi]
              Stok, P., Greevenbosch, B., Bierman, A., Schoenwaelder,
              J., and A. Sehgal, "CoAP Management Interface", draft-
              vanderstok-core-comi-06 (work in progress), February 2015.

   [IDevID]   IEEE Standard, , "IEEE 802.1AR Secure Device Identifier",
              December 2009, <http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/
              standard/802.1AR-2009.html>.






Kumar & van der Stok    Expires September 5, 2015              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                  Bootstrap                     March 2015


   [RFC4279]  Eronen, P. and H. Tschofenig, "Pre-Shared Key Ciphersuites
              for Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 4279, December
              2005.

   [RFC5191]  Forsberg, D., Ohba, Y., Patil, B., Tschofenig, H., and A.
              Yegin, "Protocol for Carrying Authentication for Network
              Access (PANA)", RFC 5191, May 2008.

   [RFC5216]  Simon, D., Aboba, B., and R. Hurst, "The EAP-TLS
              Authentication Protocol", RFC 5216, March 2008.

   [RFC6345]  Duffy, P., Chakrabarti, S., Cragie, R., Ohba, Y., and A.
              Yegin, "Protocol for Carrying Authentication for Network
              Access (PANA) Relay Element", RFC 6345, August 2011.

   [RFC6655]  McGrew, D. and D. Bailey, "AES-CCM Cipher Suites for
              Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 6655, July 2012.

   [RFC6690]  Shelby, Z., "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link
              Format", RFC 6690, August 2012.

   [RFC6763]  Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
              Discovery", RFC 6763, February 2013.

   [RFC7250]  Wouters, P., Tschofenig, H., Gilmore, J., Weiler, S., and
              T. Kivinen, "Using Raw Public Keys in Transport Layer
              Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
              (DTLS)", RFC 7250, June 2014.

   [RFC7251]  McGrew, D., Bailey, D., Campagna, M., and R. Dugal, "AES-
              CCM Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites for
              TLS", RFC 7251, June 2014.

   [RFC7252]  Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252, June 2014.

   [RFC7390]  Rahman, A. and E. Dijk, "Group Communication for the
              Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7390,
              October 2014.

   [ZigbeeIP]
              ZigBee Alliance, , ""ZigBee IP Specification"", .

   [ieee802.15.4]
              Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, , "IEEE
              Standard 802.15.4-2006", 2006.





Kumar & van der Stok    Expires September 5, 2015              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                  Bootstrap                     March 2015


Authors' Addresses

   Sandeep S. Kumar
   Philips Research
   High Tech Campus 34
   Eindhoven  5656 AE
   NL

   Email: ietf.author@sandeep-kumar.org


   Peter van der Stok
   Consultant

   Email: consultancy@vanderstok.org




































Kumar & van der Stok    Expires September 5, 2015              [Page 21]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/